Feb, 27.
'Swittly a thoughtful correspondent' raises specific points on Pacific policies as expounded here on Monday. He tries to fil in the gaps which he discerns as purposely left for such attention. In that employment he may be permitted to revel. Nor is it neces sary, probably, to disabuse him of the idea, which a certain ambiguity in his phraseology might generate, that to Japan's "former asrociates" this journal would re~ commend repair of Japan's resilement from their common policy by adoption of Japan's _interpretation of a positive attitude in China. He directly challenges a definition of British policy and also the wisdom of ignoring what he regards as the plain evidence Japanese "pressure" as the determining factor in the Sino-Japanese understanding, however extensive or precise that may be. Tt would be "insulting the intelligence of readers, to say nothing of the un-Aoubted sincerity of the challenger, to pretend that these points have no substance. The difieulty, indeed, {s to find valid cause for not treat-
{ng them as pivotal rather than cidental to the present complicated development of Pacific relationship. Of British policy this journal obviously cannot speak with any definite authority. Tt can only judge from pronouncements avail~ able to the world at large that British policy remains undisturbed by recent events. And there is ood reason to contend that, if ever that policy were in need of justification, "Great Bfitain's present freedom from undesirable commitments in Far Eastern polities supplied ample proof. Her {interests "are great—materially greater than those of any other Power—and, by insistence on her pursuit of them with full regard for the principles of China's Integrity, she may reasonably be-Weve that her bona fides will command respect and confidence. That, apart from her obligations under accepted instruments of in~ ternational agreement, she prefers maintain a. virtual isolation must be attributed to the variety of her contacts, as well as to her known friendship with China, with Japan and with the United States of America.
All that is perhaps easy of com~ prehension. Where the course of recent happenings demands a less casual assessment is in the definite unfolding of Japan's influence in China. At the outset it is essential to take note that Japan—by her own action on grounds which seemed to her, rightly or wrongly, to be compelling—has, or will shortly have, ceased to be a member of the League of Nations. Preparatory to that state, Japan has found it necessary to assert her place in China's political philosophy. The process has had its disadvantages for all_ parties. The League, continuing, as it has a perfect right to do, its normal contact with its member, China, thas been embarrassingly conscious of the danger of arousing Japanese suspicions. China, in inviting and accepting League services, has had to guard herself against any appearance of using those services to flout Japanese susceptibilities. Japan, deprived of the moral support of partnership with China in the Covenant of the League, has had to evolve a technique to which circumstances have given an undoubtedly aggressive aspect. It is late in the day to expect a sudden revulsion of feeling in Japan.- Whether, in the long run, she will find herself able to return to the collective system must be left to the future to determine.
Practical considerations demand that the altution should be treated on the basis of facts as they are. And the chief of those facts is Japan's acute need for economic expansion to which the obviously inevitable mutuality of her relations with
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.